Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was playing a game in CMBN 3.11 and my opponent has this M8 armoured car. A car that fires ammunition I've never encountered before.

Here is the M8 - looks ordinary to me..

IMG_0834.PNG

And here is what the shot looks like when it fires..

IMG_0833.PNG

I thought someone was using a Hegehog from a destroyer for a moment! This stuff seems deadly to infantry. I never saw my M8s fire something like this when I used them in other battles. Is this some canister shot? Why have my own M8s not used it in the past? Is there some special requirement or unit to buy?

Edited by Bud_B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canister shot!

 

Ah, well. My opponent surrendered 8 turns in. I like Panthers but their side armour is too weak, so I picked Tigers this time. Nasty business, those...ended the game right quick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah those canister rounds are cool to watch. Not cool to be on the receiving end of. They only have a small number and so they don't use them unless the commander feels like they will get a good bang for his buck. Keep playing with them and you will see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bud_B,

 

kohlenklau is absolutely right. Think of it as firing 122 bullets in an instant, for that's how many lead balls are in that M2 round. That's why artillery had it. To keep infantry from overrunning the guns. The M8 has the same basic gun as the obsolete towed M6 ATG, so fires the same ammo. Call it a strong argument in favor of effective use of dispersion and cover. In Closing with the Enemy, Doubler talks about a bocage assault technique in which demo charges (lots of emplaced explosives, unlike the CM satchel charge) were set off in the back corners of the near hedgerow. Two Stuarts would come racing in, blazing away with canister into the far corners to kill the MGs habitually found there (crossfires), then lighting up the length of the hedgerow in between with MG fire. That seems doable, right? True, but that's only part of the tactic, for the decks of the Stuarts had US tank descents on them, whose specific job was to make sure a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck didn't wipe out the rather occupied Stuarts. In closing, it occurs to me that it may be incorrect to show tracer effects on the canister shot balls, for they are not tracer equipped. Granted, my realization is more than a bit late!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Thanks for the additional info.

It's true that there shouldn't be tracers showing but it does help players see what's going on in a mipch smaller than real life scale. Mortars shouldn't gave tracers either, yet we see their shots too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "tracer on every bullet" nature of tracer in the game isn't "correct" either. It's there for effect, and to allow you to know what your troops are shooting at (since you're taking the roles of all the squad commanders who are down there doing the shooting). I understand there are mods that reduce the tracer effects considerably (or even eliminate them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Thanks for the additional info.

Bud,

you need to keep the rule of thumb firmly in mind: if Kettler said it, it's probably wrong.

 

For example, a short minute at Amazon preview or here (PDF link) would quickly advise you that what he said about Stuarts and canister is rubbish :)

 

What's particularly "interesting" is that Kettler already knows what he's saying is rubbish, but chooses to repeat it anyway. Make of that what you will.

Edited by JonS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bud_B,

 

You're welcome. Understand this. JonS has a very long history, years,  of intimidating and attacking Forum Members, and by no means just me. Have gotten PMs from others attesting to the same. Some won't post for fear they'll draw his ire. He is singularly fortunate to still be here, I suspect his doing scenario work for BFC helps, for he has been publicly warned by BFC in the past, and this doesn't exactly show he's figured out gentlemanly behavior yet. The link tells the sordid tale. No matter how good the evidence I present, he not only won't acknowledge it, but he'll lash out at me some other way.

 

I've never claimed my memory is perfect, and, regarding the Stuart vs bocage business, I may have conflated several things I read, but disagreement should consist of courteously debating the evidence, not making sweeping dismissive claims to others about everything said by the other party, and it certainly should never descend to the level of ad hominem attacks. Claiming I'm going around deliberately spreading incorrect information is pretty rude, and that's some of his better behavior.

 

JonS,

 

After the way you ungraciously, ungratefully and gratuitously exploded on me in the Katusha thread, then made Bulletpoint collateral damage from your outburst, which you then capped off by prohibited name calling targeting me, I'm surprised you have any spleen to unload! Please stop behaving like a board bully, start behaving like a mature adult male, stop slanging me and poisoning people toward me.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bud_B,

 

You're welcome. Understand this. JonS has a very long history, years,  of intimidating and attacking Forum Members, and by no means just me. Have gotten PMs from others attesting to the same. Some won't post for fear they'll draw his ire. He is singularly fortunate to still be here, I suspect his doing scenario work for BFC helps, for he has been publicly warned by BFC in the past, and this doesn't exactly show he's figured out gentlemanly behavior yet. The link tells the sordid tale. No matter how good the evidence I present, he not only won't acknowledge it, but he'll lash out at me some other way.

 

I've never claimed my memory is perfect, and, regarding the Stuart vs bocage business, I may have conflated several things I read, but disagreement should consist of courteously debating the evidence, not making sweeping dismissive claims to others about everything said by the other party, and it certainly should never descend to the level of ad hominem attacks. Claiming I'm going around deliberately spreading incorrect information is pretty rude, and that's some of his better behavior.

 

JonS,

 

After the way you ungraciously, ungratefully and gratuitously exploded on me in the Katusha thread, then made Bulletpoint collateral damage from your outburst, which you then capped off by prohibited name calling targeting me, I'm surprised you have any spleen to unload! Please stop behaving like a board bully, start behaving like a mature adult male, stop slanging me and poisoning people toward me.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

 

Wow, John. I just looked through your posts that received reputation. Looks like you attracted the ire of a very select group of individuals including JonS, 4 posters to be exact. I'm not sure why, since I find all of your posts very helpful and good natured, including the posts that were downvoted. Can't please everyone, I guess :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive never had any problem with JonS. A lot of people here havent been here as long as.Jon S, Kettler, and I. First of all JonS has contributed more than 90% of the board to the games the boards are about. Second he.s quite knowledgeable and never has been rude to me. Kettler though you.ve toned it down quite a bit i suspect you really just made yourself an overt topic by sharing very odd and often quite provable nonsense conspiracy theories like your posts about a Nazi VBIED nuke at Kursk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bud_B,

 

kohlenklau is absolutely right. Think of it as firing 122 bullets in an instant, for that's how many lead balls are in that M2 round. That's why artillery had it. To keep infantry from overrunning the guns. The M8 has the same basic gun as the obsolete towed M6 ATG, so fires the same ammo. Call it a strong argument in favor of effective use of dispersion and cover. In Closing with the Enemy, Doubler talks about a bocage assault technique in which demo charges (lots of emplaced explosives, unlike the CM satchel charge) were set off in the back corners of the near hedgerow. Two Stuarts would come racing in, blazing away with canister into the far corners to kill the MGs habitually found there (crossfires), then lighting up the length of the hedgerow in between with MG fire. That seems doable, right? True, but that's only part of the tactic, for the decks of the Stuarts had US tank descents on them, whose specific job was to make sure a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck didn't wipe out the rather occupied Stuarts.

 

You keep referring to this and I seriously can't find the section of the book where he describes Stuarts firing canister. I brought it up in another thread and you didn't elaborate there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, John. I just looked through your posts that received reputation. Looks like you attracted the ire of a very select group of individuals including JonS, 4 posters to be exact. I'm not sure why, since I find all of your posts very helpful and good natured, including the posts that were downvoted. Can't please everyone, I guess :)

 

Kettler has a very long history here (to say nothing of his website) of posting and repeating downright nonsense (and quoting authors like Viktor Suvorov) that is easily debunked. That's why JonS, myself, and others take a generally dim view of anything he posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kettler has a very long history here (to say nothing of his website) of posting and repeating downright nonsense (and quoting authors like Viktor Suvorov) that is easily debunked. That's why JonS, myself, and others take a generally dim view of anything he posts.

 

I understand he is a guy who likes to share information that's not always correct, but I never got the impression that it was out of malice. I have to say that I never saw him insult or attack any other user on this forum, despite some pretty toxic comments thrown his way. I know this is really none of my business, so don't start a bar fight. Just thought I would add my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kettler has a very long history here (to say nothing of his website) of posting and repeating downright nonsense (and quoting authors like Viktor Suvorov) that is easily debunked. That's why JonS, myself, and others take a generally dim view of anything he posts.

 

If he's wrong about something, wouldn't it be better to say as much and debunk him with evidence? I'd much rather read that coversation. Your current system of downvoting and bullying is a little lacking for all parties involved.

 

Don't fear, it's just the internet.

Edited by delliejonut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he's wrong about something, wouldn't it be better to say as much and debunk him with evidence? I'd much rather read that conversation. 

 

He has been debunked over and over again, but he never really listens. Read some of his replies to JonS in the linked threads up above, and you'll see what I mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has been debunked over and over again, but he never really listens. Read some of his replies to JonS in the linked threads up above, and you'll see what I mean. 

 

I read through the linked threads, for the most part. I don't think you're at all wrong in critiquing John when you feel that he has said something untrue. Everyone should be open to critique- it's necessary and healthy.

 

However, critique is not my problem. Caustic behavior towards other individuals is. If someone posting a rebuttal does so negatively then logic is displaced, and there can be no genuine discussion. At that point, because of negativity bias, all discussion will become paranoid, defensive, and aggressive. 

 

I know you guys have a history I don't fully understand, but both parties are valid, even if one side is sometimes incorrect. I'm not asking you to stop fact checking or become apathetic. Just try to pretend that other people on the forums are actually people. 

 

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bud_B

 

Ah, you discovered canister shot! Canister shot is a big reason why I have a lot of love for Stuarts and Greyhounds.

 

 

As for the rest of the drama in this thread.......all I can say is I seldom pay much attention on here to anyone who won't play PBEMs. Nuff said about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bud_B

 

Ah, you discovered canister shot! Canister shot is a big reason why I have a lot of love for Stuarts and Greyhounds.

 

 

As for the rest of the drama in this thread.......all I can say is I seldom pay much attention on here to anyone who won't play PBEMs. Nuff said about that.

 

Care for a match? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bud_B

 

Ah, you discovered canister shot! Canister shot is a big reason why I have a lot of love for Stuarts and Greyhounds.

 

 

As for the rest of the drama in this thread.......all I can say is I seldom pay much attention on here to anyone who won't play PBEMs. Nuff said about that.

Haha, well, I do play PBEM. ;)

Though I am confused. I've had several people say it IS canister that the m8 is firing, and several say they've never read of that being done. Those that say it's not, are you saying the game is incorrect, in your view, in giving the m8 that capability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand he is a guy who likes to share information that's not always correct, but I never got the impression that it was out of malice. I have to say that I never saw him insult or attack any other user on this forum, despite some pretty toxic comments thrown his way. I know this is really none of my business, so don't start a bar fight. Just thought I would add my two cents.

I get that there is history between individuals in any community. I know it can become frustrating. I understand that one gets tired of some people. But, I've never had problems with either John, or JonS. JonS has been helpful to me when I asked questions about using the editor, and John has never been unpleasant to me. I don't think that either of you gentlemen arguing in an ad hominem manner is constructive to making your points, but it really does reduce my desire to continue the discussion because I'm not here for an argument but go talk about history and our mutual enjoyment of CM gaming. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sublime and delliejonut,

 

As I've said kindly, explicitly, even pointedly to LukeFF, Wicky et al., Steve asked me quite some time ago not to start threads on certain topics, and I haven't. Those named have repeatedly and with malice aforethought made it a point to drag those very things from a certain place I mustn't name to over here, then have proceeded to hit me when they know I can't hit back. Moreover, they've done so despite my further pointing out that what they were doing was directly injurious to me, for I'm under medical instructions I'm not supposed to be stressed. They still did it. They have called me names, attributed things to me that weren't true, belittled me, called me a liar and deliberately baited me in the hope I'll slip. I did so once, on the old board. Wicky dragged out a technical mistake I made, a point I've many times admitted my error concerning. He kept hammering away at me thereafter with spurious claims, and I, angered and  swept up in righteous indignation, posted a fateful link. That got me a Moon rocket. I haven't made that same mistake twice. On this board, I got a warning for an offense not even on the books, yet the three of them flout the Forum Rules at will, but nothing ever happens. You can see the pattern for yourself in thread after thread starting with the disastrous emoticon post. Over and over again a certain Admin lets them tear me to pieces, and when I, sometimes accompanied by others, object, defend myself, call for appropriate behavior and even quote the malefactors the Forum Rules, magically a thread lock appears, with not so much as a word of reproof. Which, of course, empowers them to do it again. When it gets so bad  that other Members are quoting them the Forum Rules, pointing out stalkerish behavior, baiting and the like, who is the problem? It assuredly isn't me. And that's not just my opinion, but the published views of other Members. 

 

I will happily debate the views, the issues, the concepts, the facts and more as they apply to the games, weapon capabilities and military history. Equally, I will share my own direct experience where relevant and permitted. Nor do I make any claim of infallible memory. Indeed, I've many times said I could be wrong. This is supposed to be a civilized, family friendly place. It generally is, but we have board bullies. And as bullies do, these pick on those least able to defend themselves. On those who are different. It is rude, uncouth, low and boorish not merely to conduct forbidden ad hominem attacks, but to do so when the one being attacked is on the ground, bound hand and foot and has already been kicked in the head!  Let me be blunt: 

 

There is absolutely no excuse or justification, even if someone hates me outright, for ad hominem attacks, slander, character assassination, insults, intimidation and a laundry list of other offenses against the Forum Rules, commonly accepted social standards and simple human decency. What these malefactors are doing to me is profoundly violative and hurtful. I wish to be able to go about my lawful occasions on the Forums without being vexed, annoyed, harassed and attacked. This is my right as someone who carefully abides by the Forum Rules.

 

Canister Effectiveness

 

To claim that canister had no utility in the bocage is the same as saying six HMG-42s firing simultaneously at the same target, from spitting distance, have no effect. Anyone here care to make that argument? HMG-42 at full cyclic rate puts out 20 rds/sec. The 37 mm canister round puts out 122 in vastly less than that in an instant. If the MG in the bocage is able to shoot into that field, it stands to reason that blast after blast of the intensity I described and going at the German MG position is going to have an effect. The greater the fire density over unit time, at least to a certain point, the greater the suppression and shock effect. This is the basis of the WW II TOT, the basis of concentrated surprise fire by Pakfronts, the longstanding virtue of the ambush. Canister creates instantaneous fire superiority. Supporting my argument is this M4 Sherman Wiki excerpt. It's under "Miscellaneous."

 

"The 75 mm gun also had an effective canister round that functioned as a large shotgun. In the close fighting of the French bocage, the 2nd Armored Division tanks used Culin Hedgerow Cutters fitted to their tanks to push three tanks together through a hedgerow. The flank tanks would clear the back of the hedgerow on their side with canister rounds while the center tank would engage and suppress known or suspected enemy positions on the next hedgerow. This approach permitted surprisingly fast progress through the very tough and well-defended hedgerows in Normandy. Over 500 sets of these were fitted to US armored vehicles, and many fitted to various British tanks (where they were called "Prongs")."

 

That canister round was designated T30. Source: M4 Sherman at War, Michael Green and James D. Brown, on page 68, last paragraph, bottom right.

 

Doug Williams,

 

Then I should be okay, for I'm working with SLIM to figure out GaJ's CM Helper.

 

LukeFF and JonS,

 

Not only do you not listen, but you apparently can't read anymore, either. I have many times now asked you to leave me in peace, yet here you are again trashing me. I look forward to seeing how you talk your way out of what I just posted on canister: information that's credible, is fully in accord with demonstrated combat realities, and is multiply documented. I may well be wrong on the Stuart assault technique, but I'm right on the use and efficacy of canister in bocage warfare. 

 

Bud_B,

 

The M8 has canister, is self-evidently firing same in the pic you provided, and it is wholly appropriate it should be doing so. In case you have any doubts, Steve Zaloga, noted weapon expert and armor writer (not to mention a tremendous modeler), lists three ammo types for the M8: AP, HE and canister. Page 19 of his Greyhound Light Armored Car 1941-1991

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those playing along at home; after being called out on repeating previously-shown-to-be-wrong information, Kettler has now moved on to

i) a weird MilHist version of the Gish Gallop

ii) various forms of "woe is me, it's all just sooooo unfair"

iii) flooding the board with irrelevant, quickly googled, links

iv) vigorously contesting points nobody has made

all of which, like the repetition thing, we've seen dozens of times before.

 

Would anyone like to place a bet as to which of his 'tactics' will be trotted out next? :D

Edited by JonS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...